K. N. OJHA, J. Instant application has been moved by Smt. Shashi Goel under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No, 3639 of 2003 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 437/95) Modi Industries Ltd. Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad v. Dinesh, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri A. K. Jain learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Ramesh Sinha learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and have gone through the record. 3. The fact of the case as disclosed from the record is that Smt. Shashi Goel and Dinesh Chandra Agrawal were partner of M/s. D. S. Gas Agency, Bulandshahr. They entered into partnership on 14,1. 80 to carry on the business but according to the complainant Smt. Shashi Goel, she withdrew herself from the partnership since 1-4- 1982 and Smt. Vimla Devi became partner with Dinesh Chandra Agrawal of M/s. D. S. Gas Agency. According to the Modi Industries Ltd. Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad opposite party No. 2 the M/s. D. S. Gas Agency was working as its Agent. Gas filled cylinders were given to M/s. D. S. Gas Agency and empty cylinder were to be returned to it. But cylinders worth Rs. 10 lakhs were not returned to it. Therefore, a notice was sent to M/s. D. S. Gas Agency on 24-7-93 but it was not returned and it was told that the M/s. D. S. Gas Agency has closed the business, therefore, Complaint was filed before IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad specifically mentioning the names of Dinesh Chandra Agrawal and Smt. Shashi Goel the partner of the Firm M/s. D. S. Gas Agency. The learned Magistrate summoned Dinesh Chandra Agrawal and the applicant by passing an order dated 28-10-95. 4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 Modi Industries Ltd. has relied on AIR 1985 SC 628 Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar & Anr. , wherein it has been laid down that if allegations make out the offence under Section 406 IPC, right to prove the case could not be denied to the complainant because the complaint Prima facie disclosed the offence of breach of trust and the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint under Section 482 Cr. PC. 5. , wherein it has been laid down that if allegations make out the offence under Section 406 IPC, right to prove the case could not be denied to the complainant because the complaint Prima facie disclosed the offence of breach of trust and the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint under Section 482 Cr. PC. 5. In 2001 (1) JIC 717 (SC) : 2001 SCC (Crl.) 275, Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar & Ors. , it has been laid down by Honble the Apex Court that it is settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and may also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable it does not mean that Criminal Complaint cannot be maintained. 6. In 2002 (1) JIC 5 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Crl.) 200, Kamla Devi Agrawal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. , it has been laid down by Honble the Apex Court that Criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because of the pendency of civil proceedings between the same parties because nature and scope of standard of proof required in civil and criminal proceedings are distinct. The same law has been laid down in 2002 (1) JIC 167 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Crl) 19 M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh & Anr. . 7. In instant case it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 that if Smt. Shashi Goel who is sister of Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, after marriage ceased to be partner of the Firm and another partnership was created by Dinesh Chandra Agrawal with his mother Smt, Vimla Devi on 1-4-1982, the partnership of M/s. D. S. Gas Agency still existed and if it was so, then the liability was of the Firm at that time to bring the fact to the notice of the Registrar of the Societies and Modi Industries Ltd. No such notice was sent by Smt. Shashi Goel that she was no more partner in the Firm nor this fact was disclosed at the time of summoning the accused. Such plea can be raised at the appropriate stage when the charges are framed. 8. Such plea can be raised at the appropriate stage when the charges are framed. 8. In this case it is not denied that when contract did take place between Modi Industries Ltd. , Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad and M/s. D. S. Gas Agency it was agreed that filled Up Gas cylinders were to be given to M/s. D. S. Gas Agency to sell the gas and return the empty cylinders. Smt. Shashi Goel was its partner. If later on she ceased to be partner what is required is that first she has to appear in the case has to file bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and cooperate with the proceedings of the case and at the stage of charge, this plea can be raised that at the time to which the cause of action relates, she was not partner of the Firm of M/s. D. S. Agency as she had left the partnership. If the learned Magistrate finds it that Smt. Shashi Goel was not partner he has to pass speaking order and the plea of limitation may also, be taken at that time but at the stage of summoning the accused, only it is to be ascertained as to whether ingredients of the offence are made out and if it is so, the accused are to be summoned. Therefore, when it is not said that Smt. Shashi Goel informed Modi Industries Ltd. that she had ceased to be partner of the Firm, the order summoning her as accused does not suffer from any illegality, as is held in the above cited cases that criminal case can proceed in addition to civil case as the circumstance of the case may be. 9. In 1996 SCC (Crl.) 507, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors. , it has been laid down by Honble the Apex Court that in a proceeding under Section 202 Cr. PC the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or her. It is not the power of the Magistrate to enter into the merit or de-merit of the case. PC the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or her. It is not the power of the Magistrate to enter into the merit or de-merit of the case. Once the Magistrate has exercised its discretion, it is not for the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of Magistrate or to examine the case on merit with a view to find out, whether or not the allegations in the complaint would ultimately end in conviction of the accused but such order passed by the Magistrate can be quashed, if the complaint does not disclose essential ingredients of offence which is alleged against the accused or when the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd or inherently improbable. 10. In instant case three witnesses were examined by Modi Industries Ltd. opposite party No. 2 under Section 200 and 202 Cr. PC, they are Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Coordinator of Modi Industries Ltd. , Sheo Raj Singh, Record keeper and Rajendra Singh Go-down clerk who deposed that agreement was executed between M/s. D. S. Gas Agency of which Smt. Shashi Goel was partner and Modi Industries Ltd. on 18-1- 1980 M/s. D. S. Gas Agency became its Agent to take delivery of filled up gas cylinders and to return empty cylinder but 385 cylinders worth Rs. 10 lakhs were not returned. No papers have been filed to show that when Smt. Shashi Goel severed her relation with M/s. D. S. Gas Agency she served notice on Modi Industries Ltd. These facts need evidence and if the learned Magistrate arrives at the conclusion that the Gas Cylinders belongs to the period when Smt. Shashi Goel was not partner and Smt. Vimla Devi became partner it is open to the learned Magistrate to discharge Smt. Shashi Goel and to summon another partner of the Firm, who appears to be liable for the breach of trust. 11. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that Smt. Shashi Goel severed her relation with M/s. D. S. Gas Agency in the year 1982 and cause of action is said to have arisen in the year 1993, therefore, the complaint is barred by time as contemplated in Section 468 Cr. PC. 11. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that Smt. Shashi Goel severed her relation with M/s. D. S. Gas Agency in the year 1982 and cause of action is said to have arisen in the year 1993, therefore, the complaint is barred by time as contemplated in Section 468 Cr. PC. This limitation has been provided only for those offences, which are punishable upto 3 years. This is a case of creation of Agency and breach of trust. Section 408 Cr. P. C. provides criminal breach of trust by clerk and servant and the punishment provided by the Section is 7 years. Section 409 Cr. P. C. contemplates about criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, which provides punishment upto life imprisonment. Thus when the allegation of opposite party No. 2 is that offence under Section 409, Cr. PC was committed the complaint cannot be said to be barred by time. 12. Therefore, the application moved by Smt. Shashi Goel under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is devoid of merit and it is dismissed. 13. However, it is open to the applicant to appear in the Court to file bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and to raise the plea that she is entitled for discharge and if such plea is raised the learned Magistrate will dispose of her application after passing a speaking order. Application dismissed. .